“It’s hard to see the forest for the trees.”
This quote traditionally refers to someone who gets mired in details but in Modoc County I believe this proverb has a whole new meaning. Thirty years ago, Western Juniper was believed to occupy 2.5 million acres in eastern Oregon, southwestern Idaho, and northeastern California, combined. Currently, that estimate is over 6 million acres for northeastern California alone.
The expansion of Western Juniper has led to the degradation of forests, range lands, riparian areas, watersheds, and wildlife habitat. Juniper has encroached on what is historically sage steppe ecosystem- the pristine mosaic of bunchgrasses and sagebrush that the Great Basin is known for, among other things.
In pre-settlement times, before 1870 or so, juniper was one part of the entire landscape. Juniper trees were found on rock outcroppings where fire couldn’t reach. But increasing human occupation led to fire suppression and the spread of juniper habitat. This was exacerbated in 1944 by Smokey the Bear and the Forest Service slogan, “Only you can prevent forest fires.”
Junipers have taken over aspen groves, by sucking water from these forest oases. A typical juniper tree uses 50-60 gallons of water per day. Junipers also provide perches for predators, such as hawks and ravens, who prey on sage grouse and pygmy rabbits, increasing the depredation of sensitive species.
The juniper trees also secrete chemicals which reduce under-story plant life within the drip line of the tree. This under-story would typically be composed of forbs, perennial bunchgrasses, and sage brush but is now likely to contain cheatgrass and Medusahead, two highly invasive annual grasses.
Now, the largest problem is how to rid the landscape of encroaching junipers. Modoc County needs to cut between 50-60,000 acres of juniper trees per year just to keep acreage stagnant; not the old growth or pre-settlement trees but those junipers that are encroaching in areas where they shouldn’t be.
It is costly to do hand removal but mechanical removal brings a myriad of its own problems. Heavy machinery can cause ruts in wet conditions. Increasing numbers of trees on the ground leads to fire loading.
How do you dispose of so many trees? Leaving them on the ground will not alleviate predator issues unless branches are lopped off. The biomass markets are great distances away from many core cutting areas. Additionally, there is just too much to be cleaned up by wood cutters.
Let’s face it. A weed is a plant out of place and juniper are definitely out of their place. Private landowners in conjunction with public agencies need to start fighting the trees that are taking over our forest, range lands, and watersheds.
Editor's Note: As a service to our readers we will be publishing columns by our regular contributors to the Modoc Independent News. Missy Merrill is a nutritionist and reproductive physiologist by education, a farm advisor by title, and a rancher/cowboygirl by birth and marriage. She has spent much of the last 20 years roaming around the west, going to school and working on ranches in Montana, Idaho, Oregon, Wyoming, and now California. The opinions expressed in this column are those of the writer and do necessarily reflect the position of the Modoc Independent News.
14 comments:
The federal agencies and Tribes could definitely work together to eradicate and "manage" the juniper. I believe that there is a juniper working group that is focused on this?? The reason the Tribes are so important is because they could push for the waivers needed to get these projects moving. We need to come forward with proposals to start the thinning of this species to protect the new/old gold: WATER.
I'm sure this is considered an 'opinion' piece and not journalism, but still... The role of juniper in a sage-steppe ecological biome is highly contested even among scientists. It is important to start any juniper discussion with an extremely clear logical basis as a foundation upon which to build a description of the role juniper 'should' play in the ecosystem. First and foremost would be a discussion of what moment in the past is being used as the 'original' makeup of the landscape and why is that the most appropriate choice. Also, since it is such a contentious issue, assertions should be referenced. I for one would like to see the source of the claim that junipers use '50-60 gallons per day' of water. As best I could tell, having heard both sides of this argument for years now, a juniper would only do that if its roots were right in the creek with that much water available, and even then probably only on the hottest days. A 'typical' hillside or plateau juniper I believe uses more in the range of 1-2 gallons per day, because that is all that is available out here in the desert. Anyway, my point is that references should be given for assertions like that. I'd say that, rather than 'forest for the trees' being the most relevant cliche for this topic, 'can of worms' is much more like it!
Well it would stand to reason, that if you plant a gardren in your yard and you do not maintain your garden by removing the weeds that grow within the gardren then the weeds would take over and your garden would be in poor health. I dont see how the forest is any diffrent than a garden? People are actually a vital part of the ecosystem. People are the ones that have to do the maintenance.
Missy's proclamations regarding junipers and the need for their eradication seem to come straight from the sheet, without much personal reflection or understanding. She leaves out the issue of 150+ years of overgrazing and how that may have affected the ecology. It seems logical to me that the vast landscapes of sage and juniper we see around us are there primarily because cows and sheep don't eat sage or juniper as effectively as they remove just about everything else. Another possible reason for not much growing under a juniper canopy is the fact that it creates shade for cows, which between eating and standing for hours on hot summer days, leave virtually nothing but bare ground. As for the water sucking attributes of juniper, if you examine the leaves closely, they are about the driest, harshest foliage outside of cactus. Hard to imagine that tree using more water than say a white fir or even a pine. Maybe the reason junipers thrive in the semi-desert is because they need less, not more, water than other vegetation. I've seen, on land in Modoc county where grazing has been excluded for many years, the healthiest-looking grasses thriving in the shade of junipers, on soil horizons re-built by the junipers, since the cows were excluded. Junipers can provide a healing environment for an over-grazed area, with a cooler and moisture microclimate.
Everyone needs to do some research and homework on this apparently. The University of Oregon has researched this, and if you will look at old photographs of the hillsides and canyons in Modoc County and compare them to today, you can see for yourself the vast difference. It is no secret that junipers suck up mass amounts of water. As a reforestation contractor for 10 years, we thinned juniper around spring areas and saw the springs come back. Juniper did not abound until the federal government started "managing" our public lands. Now wilderness areas look hideous and will go up in flames at the first lighting strike, we have wasted millions of board feet of timber, we can't put a local workforce to work who could do the "management" and folks are struggling economically, when this is obviously a manageable resource. Our natural resources are just that; RESOURCES. Juniper wood, oils, furniture, crown molding, bio mass fuel, fenceposts etc. are a way that the local economy could be picked up a bit. Wild horses are sucking up more water from the wildlife too, but we won't go there. Talk about destruction and no common sense in wildlife or ecosystem management, let alone looking at how we can put folks to work.
A few points.
Historic overgrazing of livestock does have an impact on the expansion of Western Juniper. It is due to the reduction of fine fuels which would have carried fires (Miller and Tausch, 2001). In addition, West (1999) along with Miller and Tausch (2001) both agree that the lack of fire is the single most contributing factor to the expansion of Western Juniper in the post-settlement time period.
As far as water is concerned in a wet year juniper will use 5.6 inches of soil water in a dry year that is reduced to about 2 inches. Bates et al. (2000) suggested that the depleted soil water due to juniper will significantly reduce the growing season on a site and thus the vigor of the plants.
Loafing areas- while it is true many of these areas are devoid of forage I wouldn't be so quick to blame livestock. Many of juniper sites have shallow soils with restrictive layers, thus juniper roots are concentrated in the upper soil layers (30 inches or so). This causes a redistribution of nutrients to the tree. It is highly uncommon for the understory in juniper woodlands to increase with more trees and in fact Miller et al. (2000) confirmed the opposite in successional studies- the herbaceous understory decreased.
In closing, I never suggested junipers be eradicated, rather managed.
Common sense and logical thinking would indicate that the sun and stars revolve around the earth. Science says otherwise.
Excellent article and rebuttal by Missy.
I would like to add this anecdotal piece - the local Indians utilized autumn fires to increase feed for the wild animals; an inspection of the 30 acre fire area on the road from Lookout to Adin adds credence to that point.
Retired Businessman
Retired Businessman:
Common sense is often wrong, I agree. But suggesting that something is always wrong just because it's common sense, are you? So washing your hands before eating, and looking both ways before you cross the street are now wrong just because they are common sense? I didn't think so...
As for logical, you're on the wrong track entirely. Logic would NEVER tell us that the sun revolves around the earth! Logic might initially theorize that, based on visual appearances. Then logic would dictate that facts be sought that prove or disprove that theory. And as we all know, logic would quickly lead us to the evidence that the earth is the one doing the revolving. So then we would create a new theory that incorporates the new information. But logic says you continue, always, to seek evidence and to adjust the theory accordingly. Logic leads us, perhaps slowly but inevitably, toward the truth, for it teaches us to continue to learn, to seek the truth rather than to blindly or blithely 'believe' in a position regardless of the evidence. Logic and science (pure science, without the politics or economics) are on the same side.
And pardon me but I don't see the point of your comment about the native americans burning -- I saw no comment here from anyone suggesting prescribed fire is a bad thing -- I certainly don't think it is.
I did not state that all common sense was wrong. You amplified that all out of proportion, and y
ou also missed the point about B following A, as in when A (common sense) is in error, then B (logical thought following therefrom) is wrong.
No where can one properly construe that I suggested that prescribed fire is a bad thing, for the statement was only meant to add to Missy's findings and additionally complement the Indian's for their practice of utilizing fire to enhance feed for the wild animals.
Retired Businessman
Missy-
Please refrain from citing references that support your assertions.
Many of us would prefer to stick to our opinions, and not be swayed and influenced by research and facts.
Please keep in mind that this applies to county politics, law, basic business management practices, as well as ecosystem management.
Thank you.
RB -- just to clarify -- you misunderstood me, I understood that you were not criticizing rx fire, but since neither had anyone else here criticized it, I didn't get the point of your mention.
And of course your last statement re logic was true as well. But that ties into the discussion how?
Start over: It is my assertion that we need logic as a foundation before discussing an issue as complex and emotionally/culturally compelling as juniper. You replied by implying (I thought) that logic wasn't perfect therefore it isn't important in this role, to which I naturally disagreed. We both seem to feel that science is a valid process -- I pointed out that logic is the underpinning of science, and also that modern politics tend to warp what passes for science. I suspect we're really on the same page about that, but that you value economy over ecology and thus want to make economic 'use' of the junipers, while I value ecology over economy and thus don't.
OK - good - we do both agree that logic and science go together, and that politics can distort scientific endeavors and findings. I also weigh the long-term benefits of economy vs. the long-term benefits of ecology, one not automatically viewed favorably over the other.
Retired Businessman
This very rhetoric is sometimes why we get hung up rather than moving forward with logical projects that make sense for Modoc. Science, logic or politics can delay us for awhile but if we know what we are doing and we know it is right, we shouldn't be deterred, even if it takes us a couple of years to see out project through to completion. Hats off to Sean Curtis, Mark Channel and others who have spent countless hours on the juniper working group and are now measuring outcomes.
If we use sound science in our decisionmaking, then we can design and implement projects that benefit the local economy without unacceptable longterm consequences.
But forging ahead without the sound science, because we think "we know what we are doing and we know it is right" sets us up for a myriad of unintended (and often irreversible, in the short term) consequences of both the economic and the environmental varieties.
I never said I am opposed to Modoc making economic use of junipers -- I am not. I have juniper fenceposts in my yard. I burn a small amount of juniper firewood. I appreciate (and have bought) some of the Channel family's products. I only said we should proceed carefully, question our assumptions (such as which 'snapshot of the past' we are presuming is the landscape makeup we ought to be 'returning' to), and consider all consequences before forging ahead assuming short-term economics is the highest priority.
I have no doubt that we could design a plan that would benefit Modoc economically via judicious cutting of junipers while not harming the landscape any further. It would require a variety of actions to be performed in concert -- juniper thinning, removal of intense grazing, fire return. Sadly, my experience of federal land management agencies is that while the big ecological picture is sufficiently well understood, at least to the point of recognizing that these three actions need to go together, the actual projects on the ground take the first step (juniper removal) and then it's "darn, budget problems, sorry" when it comes time to take the next two steps. That just leads to a big ecological mess which is where we are now. Let's tell the truth: juniper removal is not "watershed improvement," it's not "returning it to how it should be." What it is is, one of the few homegrown resources Modoc has, and there is motivation to manage it. OK fine, let's manage it, but let's recognize that there are other pieces of that puzzle that need to accompany that management, even at economic cost, in order to keep the end result benign.
My 0.02...
Post a Comment